So I just discovered that I have been working next to the waste of oxygen that raped my best friend several years ago. I work in a manufacturing environment and I know that you can’t fire someone just for being a sex offender unless it directly interferes with work duties (in the US). But despite it being a primarily male workforce he does work with several women who have no idea what he is. He literally followed a woman home, broke into her house, and raped her. Him working here puts every female employee at risk. How is that not an unsafe working environment? How is it at even legal to employ him anywhere where he will have contact with women?

  • somethingp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I think someone who’s committed murder is a perfect analogy actually. For people who serve their time or whatever after committing murder, there’s no legal standing for not employing them. You might feel uncomfortable as their coworker, which is totally valid. You may also believe that there is no forgiveness or second chances after committing certain crimes like rape and murder. But unless the employer has a good reason why an ex-murderer cannot perform their work duties or is currently doing illegal things at work, I don’t think they can not hire them just based off of that.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      They can actually, refuse to hire them. Ex Felons have to report their conviction for the rest of their life and they absolutely have a harder time getting work.

      • Enkrod@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Not everywhere, mostly that’s a thing in the US (which is a pretty shitty society when it comes to how they treat their ex-cons and consequently to re-offending-rates) or with jobs where the past could have an impact (for example if you are to work in law enforcement)

    • Chocrates@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Op didn’t say he was convicted, aren’t felons one of the only classes we can legally diacrimate against. I would assume they could have not hired him based on the felony but now that he is hired I have no idea. Op should talk to a lawyer if they want but I doubt mich can be done legally.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        Maybe it’s in a comment (trying to remember from yesterday) but I’m sure OP said he had spent 2 years in jail for his most recent conviction.

        Also, I don’t think a lawyer is the right person to talk to in this case. If you want someone charged you talk to the police.

      • somethingp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah I guess the employer could choose not to employ them but I don’t think they have to not employ them.

        • Chocrates@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          I guess that is what I am getting at. You can choose to not hire an otherwise qualified felon, but you can’t do the same to a protected class because they are a member of that class.